Subversion Project Migrates To Git 162
New submitter gitficionado (3600283) writes "The Apache Subversion project has begun migrating its source code from the ASF Subversion repo to git. Last week, the Subversion PMC (project management committee) voted to migrate, and the migration has already begun. Although there was strong opposition to the move from the older and more conservative SVN devs, and reportedly a lot of grumbling and ranting when the vote was tallied, a member of the PMC (who asked to remain anonymous) told the author that 'this [migration] will finally let us get rid of the current broken design to a decentralized source control model [and we'll get] merge and rename done right after all this time.'"
Source for the new git backend.
April Fool's! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:April Fool's! (Score:4, Informative)
Apple seriously uses Outlook Exchange for their mail servers, though.
[Archer]You can just say "Exchange"[/Archer]
And the iCloud is stored on Azure. The whole "Onion or Reality" test can be difficult in tech these days.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, given Apple's not exactly a well known entity in the MTA market, or in the cloud computing market, I don't see the big deal that they're using Exchange and Azure.
They're both good products run by people who know what they're doing. At least, know more than Apple on those topics. And neit
Re: (Score:2)
There's also a lot to be said for sticking to what you can be great at, and leaving the rest to someone else. But it's anathema to "Apple fans" who are really "Microsoft anti-fans", who show up a lot on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Troll time:
So Apple fans are the 'Microsoft anti-fans' who don't understand linux...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I actually believed the headline until I read more of the summary. Ya it sounds totally crazy and stupid, yet that's the sort of idiocy that happens every day in computing.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually believed the headline until I read more of the summary.
And...? The summary and headline are in agreement. (There was a Soylent article too that looked like a blatant April Fool's Day joke but actually wasn't.)
Granted, in the months leading up to the Slashcott, I actively assumed that every summary was blatantly lying to me or at least attempting to mischaracterize the situation...so read the comments until you find the one guy who knows what's actually going on...but the quality seems to have spiked recently. (Gee, isn't that a remarkable coincidence?)
Re: (Score:2)
Tony Stevenson made changes - Today 16:51
Comment [ Pfft! Happy April's fool!
For immediate release: Apache Subversion votes to rename itself Apache Irony, creates a black hole and disappears. ]
Hmm. Buried in a separate tab from the huge page of comments of everybody taking it seriously.
Re: (Score:3)
I am a happy user of both. Subversion and Git have different fields of application, and that is good.
Re: (Score:2)
git: stores and compares decentralized repositories extremly well. It's good if you have loose collaborations without a central insitution providing the repo service. Advantages are that people can quickly store their own versions during development
subversion: manages a single repository in cases where preventing multiple (uncontrolled) branches is mandated to the organization responsible (Yes, it is an advantage not to have too many different possible original sources of builds).
Disney (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...
Not really. it kind of has some BSD relations.
Your grammar and spelling belie your ethnic claim.
Would you bigots please go get a room?
/home/keeling_ uname -a /home/keeling_ apropos bsd
(0) infidel
Linux infidel 3.1.0-1-amd64 #1 SMP Tue Jan 10 05:01:58 UTC 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux
(0) infidel
bsd-from (1) - print names of those who have sent mail
bsd-mailx (1) - send and receive mail
bsd-write (1) - send a message to another user
bsd_signal (3) - signal handling with BSD semantics
File::Glob (3perl) - Perl extension for BSD glob routine
finite (3) - BSD floating-point classification functions
finitef (3) - BSD flo
April Fools! (Score:1, Troll)
Subversion is really a joke. Gotcha!
Re:April Fools! (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never understood the popularity of git. It may be useful for open source by supporting distributed development but it seems far less useful for a traditional corporate environment. SVN just makes far more sense to me in terms of command structure. If I wanted a DVCS I would probably go with Mercurial. Git is just awful.
Re:April Fools! (Score:5, Insightful)
Git solves one incredibly important problem: it stops "Linux kernel commit privileges" from being a constant political battle on Linus's part. By making "official builds" pull based, instead of push based, the whole question of "who gets to commit" vanishes and Linus has full control by change, instead of by author - a far less emotional and political thing.
So Git is overwhelmingly better if you're Linus Torvalds. And, hey, that's how open source gets written. If anyone else finds it useful for anything, that's just gravy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The only reason I can come up with Gits popularity over Mercurial is that Linus wrote it. That's about it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You may be partly right. But I think a lot of it is that for a while, Git was a lot more "powerful" -- it supported some very useful modes of operation that Hg either didn't have or wasn't very good at. So while Git was confusing, once you learned the model and commands it did a really good job of rewarding you for it.
This gap has closed substantially, particularly on the Hg side -- a lot of the "missing features" have
Re: (Score:2)
My team wanted to use bookmarks instead of HG branches. Sadly our version of Rhodecode did not support them. So we've moved the team to Git and it's actually turning out OK. Yes, different and I miss the simplicity of HG and the lovely logical nature of it. Git feels more inconsistent. But it's doing the job.
Re:April Fools! (Score:5, Informative)
Disagree. I've seen Git used to good effect in a traditional corporate environment. The ability to quickly make your own branches is useful, even if there's just an SVN-style single trunk of proper code-reviewed commits. (Technically, as Git is SVN compatible, so you could get this effect simply by using Git 'locally'.)
The ability to make team-specific branches is also valuable: a team can work toward a feature using a team-local branch, and only once they're done, rebase and push their work into the the trunk. (Yes, rebasing might take work, but it can be beneficial to just 'do this all in one go' when the team is done implementing the feature, as it means the ground isn't moving beneath their feet during 'proper' development time.)
Git does everything SVN does, and an awful lot more - personally I'd only even consider going with SVN if there were a developer team who only knew SVN and didn't have time to learn Git.
Don't know much about Mercurial, but I'm sure it's good too.
Re:April Fools! (Score:4, Insightful)
I use Git to good effect in a fairly traditional corporate environment. We're much better off since switching over from SVN.
Never mind the 'distributed' part - the big challenge for source control in a traditional setup is when two people have both modified different parts of the same files, and the second guy goes to check in. Git is much better at handling conflicts than SVN is - conflicts that would cause real pain in SVN often merge smoothly in Git.
It's also much better at handling branches, e.g. a release branch. Remember 'tree conflicts' in SVN? Not an issue in Git.
Git is a better SVN, as well as being a distributed source control system.
Re: (Score:3)
Branching does not seem any harder or easier.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference I've seen is that Git doesn't fail miserably and corrupt your local repository tracking info the way SVN tends to.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! I see just the opposite: git fucking up miserably to the point where a dev has to locally pull their changes, reclone, and overlay the changes... where svn I have never seen that.
Of course when the network goes down, so does svn.... choose your poison.
Re: (Score:2)
Try deleting a local folder without deleting the subfolders (and committing) first. Instant corruption in SVN.
Move a folder (with subfolders). Instant corruption in SVN.
Since Git (and Hg) do a diff of the entire checkout rather than maintaining meta deta per directory, it's a lot easier to do refactoring without screwing things up.
Re: (Score:2)
It is true, you must use "svn mv" as opposed to "mv."
The horror.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, try teaching that to people who's job is to do front-end development or other tasks where the OS GUI is the right tool, not the command line.
Re: (Score:2)
TortoiseSVN (for example), right click drag, drop, select SVN Move versioned files here. That was exhausting.
So much worse than when, say SmartGit, gets stuck in an endless rebaseing state thereby complete fsking your local repo along with any stashes you may have.
But this is what you get for replying on a GUI.
However most GUI devs I work with (myself included) operate from the command line.
Re: (Score:2)
Replying on a GUI. Jesus wept.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you know, just drag and drop using my existing filesystem viewer and not need a special client to do something simple like renaming a folder.
Nothing like reinventing the wheel!
Re: (Score:2)
I keep hearing the "git is better than svn at handling conflicts" meme, but of course neither handles conflicts at all. A conflict is a file where the tool can't figure out how to merge two versions and therefore has to offload it to a human.
I've also heard on the Internet that git is better than svn at doing merges, but everybody I know who has used both git and svn in real production environments says the opposite.
In my company we use svn. I did consider moving us to git or - more likely - Mercurial (th
One big way in which Git is not SVN-compatible (Score:2)
(Technically, as Git is SVN compatible, so you could get this effect simply by using Git 'locally'.)
git2svn has a problem that we ran into recently: because git does not support hierarchical branching, if you do not keep all your branches in a single Subversion directory, it will take an excessively long time for a local git repository to synchronize with a Subversion repository.
For example, let's say that you have the typical /branches directory in Subversion. Now user "myria" comes along, and she wants to make her own directory of branches so that her own branches don't pollute the /branches directory.
Re: (Score:2)
git does support hierarchical branches. You can have a branch named maria/new-crypto, and even pattern-match on the branch path in refspecs. The problem, as you alluded to, is that SVN doesn't have native branches at all, just copies. How is git-svn supposed to know that /branches/maria/new-crypto refers to a branch of /trunk and not to a directory within the "maria" branch? They look the same. For that matter, you could get that path by creating a branch named "maria" (copied from some version of /trunk) a
Re: (Score:2)
In all seriousness, SVN and git have strengths and weaknesses depending on the project and its needs, though usually the biggest one is going to be 'what do your developers already know'. Git was built to support distributed projects and is really strong in those cases, SVN was built to be highly centralized and administered and tends to be stronger when that is the plan. For most small projects they are functionally equivalent, well, outside git's 'local repo' system, which
Re: (Score:2)
I thought svn was developed to fix the problems with cvs... which it has mostly accomplished.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who uses SVN, Git, and Hg in a corporate environment (plus we have the MS solution around here somewhere but I don't touch it), I love using Git or Hg. I've setup some pretty complex project structures and branch behaviors that take advantage of how the different systems work.
That said, I haven't seen anything that would distinguish Git over Hg (or the opposite) when used in a corporate setting. If you like Hg over SVN, then you'll like Git as well because it behaves pretty much the same way, jus
Re: (Score:2)
The main practical difference, past the API, is their approach to branching: A git branch is a mercurial bookmark. There are no concept like mercurial's branch in git. There's also how git has this crazy staging area that is the cause of 90% of bad commits to our git repos. Commits that are missing a file, or have an extra file, are the bane of SVN and Git repos. In hg, the expected behavior is commit everything that is not in a patch. More discipline required, less chances of shooting yourself in the foot.
Re: (Score:2)
I've used git in a traditional corporate environment, and done right, it can be a lot more powerful than SVN.
"Done right" means you have someone dedicated to the role of "git master" who merges the team's commits into the master repository.
This is what Linus does, and it works to great effect. The great advantage is that individuals and teams can very easily work on their private branches before merging into mainline.
The second method is to set up a server which runs automatic tests on all commits and guara
Re: (Score:2)
"Done right" means you have someone dedicated to the role of "git master" who merges the team's commits into the master repository.
I would argue that this is a good practice with svn as well. You can have a free-for-all dev branch, or even a whole dev trunk, but having someone at the top (some kind of coordinator.. of builds..) makes a lot of sense.
The second method is to set up a server which runs automatic tests on all commits and guarantees at least that the git history remains clean and contributions do not break the build.
Again, this is in no way git specific. Commit hooks are well supported in svn, and tools like hudson and jenkins handle continuous integration with svn just as well as with git.
Personally I'm an svn fan, but I think with both it comes down to using it appropriately.
My main argument for svn i
Re: (Score:2)
Again, this is in no way git specific. Commit hooks are well supported in svn, and tools like hudson and jenkins handle continuous integration with svn just as well as with git.
It wasn't my intention to imply that these techniques are unique to git.
The original poster mentioned liking SVN better because of the command structure, and I was pointing out that that's possible as well with git. My point was that for certain corporate environments (or large teams in general) git can be made more centralized without losing many of its benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
I use both git and svn heavily. They both have strengths and shortcomings. Git has far stronger merge and is very useful if you are a dev who has to be disconnected for any period of time. Svn is far easier to maintain from an admin point of view and is far simpler.
Choose your poison - both seem to work fine.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who moved from SVN to HG and now from HG to Git for the same codebase, it's quite a natural step.
The HG to Git move was because of branching behaviour, which we preferred in Git, plus the ability to use Stash.
Git has its quirks but I'm having zero problems moving.
I'd always always go with HG over SVN, any day of the week and twice on a Sunday.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never understood the popularity of git. It may be useful for open source by supporting distributed development but it seems far less useful for a traditional corporate environment. SVN just makes far more sense to me in terms of command structure. If I wanted a DVCS I would probably go with Mercurial. Git is just awful.
I am working in a traditional corporate environment right now.
SVN sorks great, even when you use branchs. The problem is that merging is just not worth it.
Right now, we use SVN, and the equivalent of a pull request in github or similar, is a manual process, with several pain points, that works against the grain of development. We need to have separate code reviews for commits, and then count on developers merging code that is accepted.
We also have problems creating branches, destroying them.
I think SVN was
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, I don't think that it's sane to use svn or git without a graphical front-end. That said, I find that git-svn works way better than svn itself. Subversion merging starts looking downright silly once you see how git does it. And I was one of those who actually argued that svn's merging is "good enough". Eventually I convinced myself, through experimentation, that it's nowhere near good enough. To me, subversion is a way of centrally storing git repos without having to configure server-side git,
Re: (Score:2)
We had one guy who recently joined our team who knew Git and felt it was worth taking the plunge and moving to it, acknowledging that we would initially be frustrated at having to learn a new tool.
We use TortoiseGit along with Gitblit [gitblit.com] to host the repositories and at this point I hav
Re:April Fools! (Score:5, Insightful)
discovering git- but I'm actually curious what is awful about it?
Linus's decision to screw over everyone that has ever used SCM by refusing to use normal terms is the most awful part. Instead, as he admitted, he just randomly assigned words to concepts. For example, he randomly picked the word checkout to mean revert. Ditto using the word reset to mean unstage. "git pull" refuses to update the source like a normal system would. Instead you have to do the "git stash; git stash apply stash@{0}" dance. And stash/unstash is not standard in the first place since Bazaar, Mercurial, Perforce, TFS, etc. use the terms shelve/unshelve. The word clone is another odd one. On the topic, the decision to not allow clone to checkout a subset of a repository like is often done with Subversion is a curious one. Another not understanding users is the decision to disallow checking out only the current version of all files rather than every single version of every single file.
His decision to add so many dependencies to make it difficult to run Git on anything but Linux is another awful decision. The msysgit directory on Windows contains 14,589 files in 622Mbytes. A simple SCM should not require over 14,000 files! Finally, the decision to make the server side weak, especially wrt security, is also awful. As Linus admitted, his belief is that you should give everyone full access to everything. That obviously doesn't scale.
Of course, everything below the covers with Git is spectacular. We use it for a 500k file repo, and have had no problems after nine months. Before converting, our developers were wasting hours a week running "svn cleanup." Our artists are converting to it from Perforce, and other than the stupid decisions on command names and decision to not allow checking out just HEAD or a subset of the repo, they've had no problems despite working with hundreds of multigigabyte files.
Re:April Fools! (Score:5, Insightful)
That choice actually makes sense from the Git model. A Subversion person would ask why there is one command for three+ different things (svn revert, svn switch, svn up -r### are all done using git checkout). But if you turn your head around and look at it from a different perspective, all three of those are doing the same thing: copying something from the repository store to the working copy. From the Git perspective, Subversion is giving three different names to the same thing, each of which only works some of the time.
I don't want to argue Git is right, just that if it has a fault here, Git's is that its terms are at a lower level than users usually think and not that it's inconsistent on this point.
Oh boy. The whole index is a mess of inconsistent terminology. You stage something to the index using git add, unless you're using git add --interactive in which case that process is called updating. And of course you see what the changes are in your index by using git diff --cached. Wut?
(Yes, I know, git diff --staged is now an alias for the last. Good, now all they have to do is deal with the three other synonyms for the same thing.)
Here I also defend git, because I think this is a significant selling point. One major advantage that Git has is that once something is actually added to the store, it's nearly impossible to accidentally lose information. git stash adds the state to the store.
Compare to something like Subversion. Suppose you have a nice change. It's working properly. Now you svn up. Now you get a bunch of hard-to-resolve conflicts. You say "I don't want to deal with this now; I just want to go back to the state I was in before updating." Too bad, you can't (at least any way I know how). You're screwed, because Subversion has caused you to lose information.
Compare to git. You have to run stash before pulling (merging/rebasing technically of course), so now the state of the working copy right before the pull is in the store. You then stash apply. You get the conflicts, say "I give up for now". Now all you have to do is figure out what the SHA1 of the copy that was in the stash is. Might have to do some reflog digging, but it is not only possible but actually pretty easy if you know about the reflog.
Re: (Score:3)
You then stash apply. You get the conflicts, say "I give up for now". Now all you have to do is figure out what the SHA1 of the copy that was in the stash is. Might have to do some reflog digging, but it is not only possible but actually pretty easy if you know about the reflog.
You don't even need to bother finding the SHA1 or searching the reflog. stash apply doesn't get rid of the stash, so it's still right there as stash@{0}. You can also find it with stash list. stash pop would normally get rid of the stash after applying it, but even there the original stash is preserved if there were any merge conflicts.
Re:April Fools! (Score:4, Insightful)
Compare to something like Subversion. Suppose you have a nice change. It's working properly. Now you svn up. Now you get a bunch of hard-to-resolve conflicts. You say "I don't want to deal with this now; I just want to go back to the state I was in before updating." Too bad, you can't (at least any way I know how). You're screwed, because Subversion has caused you to lose information.
Totally this. As a subversion fanboy who has yet to jump on the git train, I see this as one of the major oversights in svn.
Personally I'm a fan of one developer, one branch. It's a bit of overhead for sure, but everyone having their own branch where they can check in their changes before merging in changes from the main branch is a nice safety net. You just have to learn to reintegrate to the feature branch often to avoid silo effect.
Re: (Score:2)
For smaller modules, the branch is typica
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
To counter your terminology argument, often in technology, backwards compatible is preferable to a redesign. Git redesigned the version control interface and that seems unnecessary. Only the most stubborn git users would say git has a better interface than subversion, which has an excellent one.
If subversion took the git lessons and added them in, it would be so much better than git ever could be. The stellar parts of git could be added into subversion more cleanly than vice versa.
To make me never think
Re:April Fools! (Score:5, Insightful)
I have also had difficulties with the client that I never had under SVN, with pretty much no luck with it working 'out of the box' on any of the machines I use. So in each case I have had to install the full development chain in order to rebuild the client because the one already installed is incompatible. SVN, for all its dullness, tends to be pretty conservative about changes and generally the distro installed one works.
However, for my use case, the community aspect (i.e. the finding projects) and traveling are not important, so those advantages do not get me much.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you want HG instead of Git?
Re: (Score:2)
yes, most people comparing subversion with hit should check instead mercurial.
Mercurial is much easier to understand than git and has a nice portable GUI.
I'm not saying got is bad, just it appear to work at a lower level than other SCMs.
Re:April Fools! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like a configuration problem. SVN is seriously one of the better ones in this regard (try ClearCase if you want to see what being limited by bandwidth feels like).
If your workspace itself was on an NFS share, this might be part of it. By default svn creates a tonne of tiny files, which can take forever over NFS due to overhead.
Re: (Score:2)
Both git and svn have the same performance hit for an initial checkout/clone. Ditto for a large team pushing changes when you update/pull. Git seems to "push" much faster than svn "commit".
Git "commit" is nothing of the sort it is basically a tagging mechanism - which is also awesome and its major strength IMO - maybe a local commit is a better description of it, but I digress. Git with its much more powerful merge functionality is also awesome.... right up to the point that something gets fucked up. The
Re: (Score:2)
The initial checkout from svn doesn't clone the entire history. With git, a shallow clone (--depth 1) doesn't either. Git's smart http transport [git-scm.com] is bound to be faster than svn, since compression can be applied across multiple files, and if there are similar files in the repository, their common chunks will always be factored out by design. With svn, it's not guaranteed and depends on how file copies/moves were managed.
Re: (Score:2)
So an svn "checkout" doesn't "clone"... harharhar, but a git "checkout" "reverts"... terrible humor. Sorry.
Well, they both can take a long ass time for an initial checkout/clone was all I was trying to say, I have never raced identical repositories with identical histories, but that would be mildly interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The shallow clone have fixed this, mostly. So far, I find no downsides to shallow clones, other than the loss of history.
Ahahaha (Score:2, Funny)
Oh Apache and Slashdot, you are truly such ruse masters!
Seriously, April 1st is such a fucking bag of sh
funny thing is (Score:5, Insightful)
This would probably be a good idea for the future of subversion.
Re: (Score:3)
The day git implements subversion externals functionality so it is easy and risk free to update from and commit to external branches, I'll swich my team. Git modules functionality is close, but you can make a mess if you commit while having a module set up.
Re: (Score:2)
The day git implements subversion externals functionality so it is easy and risk free to update from and commit to external branches, I'll swich my team. Git modules functionality is close, but you can make a mess if you commit while having a module set up.
Okay, I admit to not fully researching this, but because I have found svn externals useful in the past I thought I would inquire.
Is this something repo (used in the Android Open Source Project, I call it "meta-git") could handle? From my experience with it, repo did many of the same things I would have used a svn external for. I admit the workflow for repo didn't seem very polished, but it did allow AOSP/CyanogenMod to meta-version various git repos for a build.
Secondly, if you dont mind going into detail,
Hmm (Score:4, Informative)
I've got to admit. The discussion going on in that ticket is pretty convincing, leading me to think that either:
a) legit
b) they sucked in a lot of their own people
c) really well thought out
I'm thinking (and hoping) b, with c as an unlikely but possible second.
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
I've got to admit. The discussion going on in that ticket is pretty convincing, leading me to think that either:
a) legit
b) they sucked in a lot of their own people
c) really well thought out
I'm thinking (and hoping) b, with c as an unlikely but possible second.
I'll confess I was fooled until I remember what day it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah it got me for a good bit too. I was about to go post it to a chat in a making-fun-of-SVN-way at which point my brain was like "waaaaiiiit a minnnute..."
Re: (Score:1)
unlike other years, this time slashdot has been low on april fool articles... so i was fooled as well XD
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah. They're doing it right, finally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly I think it's way more political than practical.
Tools tend to have use cases that they are more suited to, while having use cases that their competition is more suited to. It's not unheard of to actually fall into your competitors use case while developing a product that competes in some other use case.
Politics however will almost always force you to use your own products when it's an option, even if it's the worst option.
Also I think if I use the words "use case" one more time today I fear I might
Re: (Score:2)
A good example of this is Xero (accounting software company) who recently had to stop using their own software because they got too big - way, way too big - but they hung in for a long time because they didn't want to be a company that didn't use it's own software.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm voting for (a) with a helping of very-not-(c), given:
- the comments on https://issues.apache.org/jira... [apache.org]
- this story http://www.infoq.com/news/2014... [infoq.com]
- and this twitter conversation https://twitter.com/gstein/sta... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So this is either legit or an absolutely brilliantly executed joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Legitimately impressed.
They really sold it. I was convinced it was April fools earlier today, but as it exploded I actually started to buy it. This was very well executed.
I can't help but wonder who wasn't in on it.
Option (c) (Score:2)
Everybody in that issue, except for three, .. were part of our coordinated effort. Two people threw in comments that we had to delete (and if you look closely, are in the history). The third was likely aware, and his several comments supported our ruse, so they remained.
Our various tweets, including the two from @TheASF were (of course) coordinated along with the movement on the issue.
It was about a dozen of us, spanning around 14 hours. Many April Fool's pranks are "fire and forget". Keeping it *live* was
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the followup :)
And let me say I was legitimately blown away by this. I was totally convinced this was an April fools joke in the morning, but as things progressed I was starting to have doubts. By the time the proverbial beans were finally spilled, I was honestly giving it 50/50 of being real with very poor timing. You guys totally sold it.
Definitely the best prank I've seen in a long time. Much appreciated :)
April's Fools? (Score:1)
Not so much an April's Fool Day joke... (Score:1)
...as wishful thinking I am guessing.
Change (Score:5, Funny)
'this [migration] will finally let us get rid of the current broken design... ... and replace it with a completely new broken design. (I hate git.)
Re: (Score:2)
What specifically don't you like about git? How is it a new broken design? Is it broken because it does not fit with your work flow or handle certain types of development? Curious to know.
Re: (Score:3)
Not the OP here, but the main thing I dislike about git is the UI. The internals may be good, but the UI is a hack, complete with counter-intuitive alternate uses of commands via switches that seem like they should be used elsewhere, etc., etc., etc. Contrast that with Mercurial, which has a much more logical and consistent UI, and UI's are important (command line or of that other trendy variety). People who think the git UI is fine are probably just used to it. If you can get used to the spelling of my mot
Re: (Score:2)
+1 UI madness.
For me the problem with git is the extreme un-usability of the standard command-line client.
There are countless ways of doing the same operations, all of which are confusing. Unless I use a specific command on a daily basis I end up having to look it up and sift through results with varying ways of doing the same thing. It is extremely frustrating. Some of the other dvcs solutions are far superior in this regard.
Architecturally, git is fantastic. It seems to me it shouldn't be that difficult t
Re:Change (Score:4, Funny)
Exactly.
I love git, because all my development repos are self-contained, easy to backup and work perfectly offline.
"git rebase -i" is just wonderful.
BUT :
You want to pull and overwrite your local changes? It's as easy as :
git add *
git commit -a -m "auto dev server commit"
git fetch origin master
git merge -s recursive -X theirs origin/master
You want to clone your local repo to a new remote one and use it as origin? Sure : /usr/local/git_root/
#On local machine
cd foo_project
git init
git add *
git commit -m "My initial commit message"
#On remote machine (Git remote repository)
sudo su - git
cd
mkdir foo-project.git
cd foo-project.git/
git --bare init
git config core.sharedrepository 1
git config receive.denyNonFastforwards true
find objects -type d -exec chmod 02770 {} \;
#On local machine, in your git project
git remote add origin ssh://git@example.com:2227/usr/local/git_root/foo_project.git
git push -u origin master
Those are just 2 examples that come often enough to be an annoyance, but not often enough that I can remember them.
Re: (Score:3)
Terrible, unintuitive syntax. Horrible documentation that was apparently written for people who already understand it. Obscure error messages. Too much knowledge required up front to start using it effectively. Hard to pick up the pieces when something inevitably goes wrong.
I've seen posts elsewhere where people say "Oh, once you understand that behind the scenes it's working on blobs and trees and commits then it makes more sense. Also, graph theory." OK, but should I need to know any of that? I don
Re: (Score:2)
OK, but should I need to know any of that?
Yes. I've found that there's no way to use it without knowing this. It's as simple as that, and I don't consider it a deficiency of git at all. You're supposed to understand the tools that you use. The things you speak of are not implementation details, they are part of the semantics exposed directly to the user. They make the whole thing work and useful.
Yes, the command line syntax is abhorrent, but then I almost never use it. SmartGit/Hg [syntevo.com] has won me over.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not. Sit down and actually use it. You'll find that it doesn't require an email address at all.
Ah, there it is... (Score:2)
Not as bad as some of the jokes in years past.
I miss the old days... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't miss those days when every goddamn post on 1 April was an unfunny joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Now it seems every post on any day is an unfunny joke.
Two for one (Score:2)
Nah, they're just lumping April 1 and April 20 into one event: an Easter Egg hunt for April Fool's jokes.
Re: (Score:2)
You've got it exactly backwards. The whole point of April Fool's is to -- get this -- FOOL people. So instead of a bunch of OBVIOUSLY wrong stories that fool NO ONE (and are totally un-funny to boot), you sneak in one or two plausible-sounding stories among the rest and fool people.
In other words, Slashdot doesn't want to just list a bunch of jokes that other people made -- they want to play some tricks themselves.
I much prefer this to "shitty jokes that make Slashdot totally unreadable" day.
And Git Migrates to CVS... (Score:2, Funny)
and CVS migrates to RCS supported by front end in Gopher, a backend in TFTP with all discussions held over usenet using the pine news reader. If everyone would just remember to update the damn version numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody actually remembers that pine could read news, not just email. Talk about obscure...
April 2 (Score:2)
The best thing about April 2 is that all those fucking stupid joke stories start to scroll off of the site.
The worst thing about April 2 is that those fucking stupid joke stories haven't yet fully scrolled off of the site.
I would REALLY love for Slashdot to have a new option: hide April 1 joke stories.
Re: (Score:2)
It's kinda depressing that while just about everyone external got it immediately, people (high up people) seem to have bought into it wholesale (assuming they arn't all in on it).
The joke wasn't all that funny, but yeah, the internal reaction is.
(this is assuming it's not legit of course).